2/8/2012

My general impulse is throw cold water on momentary buzz, so this bit of hype from Camp Santorum reported by Byron York after sweeping Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado caught my attention:

After the returns came in, I asked Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley what he thought about Rich Beeson’s message. Sure, Santorum did well on Tuesday, but doesn’t Romney have the money and infrastructure to outdistance Santorum, and everyone else, in the long run?

“What an inspiring message,” Gidley said sarcastically. “That is really inspiring. I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.”

“No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,” Gidley continued. “We’ll have money, and we’ll have infrastructure, but our nominee has to have a message that people can get behind and inspires people.”

In fact, Obama raised more money than Clinton headed into the Iowa caucuses. Obama’s endorsements in early states were competitive with hers. And Obama out-organized Hillary. It’s too bad for Rick Santorum that his staff apparently does not know this, as there’s an important lesson for them in it.

Obama was able to wage a long campaign against Clinton in 2008 because he followed (and improved on) McGovern’s 1972 strategy of picking up cheap delegates in caucus states, particularly “red states,” which his rivals ignored. Santorum’s wins in bluish-purple caucuses — Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado — and his plans to target Washington state’s caucus in the upcoming rounds suggest a general awareness of Obama’s strategy. The RNC, having noticed that the Dems’ long 2008 campaign drove registration and organization in more states, helped open the door to an insurgent campaign by dictating proportional allocation of delegates for primaries and caucuses held before April, although some of these early non-binding contests awarding delegates later complicate these calculations. The RNC’s plan did not anticipate this cycle’s unexciting and inept field of candidates. In any event, it also ultimately works against a NotRomney like Santorum.

In March, with its treasure trove of delegates, there are plenty of places a NotRomney could do well, including caucuses. Many of these states lean conservative and evangelical. But proportional allocation of delegates insures Romney will get a share of delegates in most of these contests. Moreover, if Newt Gingrich remains in on Super Tuesday, he may do well in Georgia (one of the biggest delegate counts that day) and other southern states, splitting the NotRomney vote. Indeed, Newt has already headed to Ohio, another state where Romney would benefit from a split vote on Super Tuesday (Ohio moved the GOP primary from June back to March. Given the likely Santorumentum from last night’s sweep, I wonder whether the Mitt-backed superPAC will dial back its attacks on Newt in Ohio.) Moreover, Ron Paul is openly pursuing the McGovern/Obama cheap delegate strategy in caucus states, which complicates efforts by other NotRomneys hoping to do the same. Furthermore, the strategy has its limits: only 486 delegates will be awarded in caucus states.

Once winner-take-all contests become prevalent in April, the calendar becomes heavily weighted to northeastern states — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin being Santorum’s best opportunities. May would be a more Santorum-friendly month. June will be dominated by California, New Jersey and Utah, all presumably Romney-friendly states.

Contra Santorum’s flack, the fact that the eventual nominee will have money and organization does not help Santorum become the nominee today. Despite the big wallet of Foster Friess, Santorum needs money and organization now. And he needs Newt to be out of the race by Super Tuesday. At the moment, that scenario seems unlikely.

No, no no. Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich need the other to be in the race. One poll showed that about half of votes for Santorum, go to Romney if he is out of the race. This is probably also true to some degree for Newt Gingrich. This idea of santorum being better if Newt Gingrich drops out, or vice versa, only sort of half makes sense if the winning candidate has to have the most pledged delegates at the end of the primaries, and no deals or endorsements are possible. In such a case a pledged delegate fpr Newt Gingrich is just as bad for Rick Santorum as a pledged delegate to Romney. But things are not that way.

While a certain portion of Newt Gingrich’s and Rick Santorum’s voters would go to Romney if they dropped out, that is not the case for their delegates. The delegates would overwhelmingly go for the other Not Romney. This is not just in connection with a second ballot. One of the two, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum might very well endorse the other before the convention.

Now there’s something more. If you want another choice – if you want a brokered convention (which may be legally difficult to ddo now because of all the disclosures a presidentrial candidate is supposed to make and the lack of time after the beginning of September for even printing ballots)
then you also need both Newt Gingrich and Rick Rick Santorum to stay in the race.

My favorite idea probably would be this. At the moment, I think Jeb Bush might be best. Although hoping for that wopuld bne like hoping for an around the table shot in billiards.

On the other hand, while few of Ron Paul’s votes would otherwise go to Mitt Romney or maybe even vote at all in the Republican primary, Ron Paul’s delegates are highly likely to go to Mitt Romney, and Mitt Romney knows that. Not to mention that in some cases, like Virginia, the actual delegates would be picked by people high in the state party organziation.

Ron Paul ‘s delegates wouldvote for Mitt Romney as a result of a deal and endorsement by Ron Paul, who would settle for a speaking role and getting neo-isolationist language into the Republican platform – and everyone knows that Mott Romney is the kind of person who would agree to that. (Newt Gingrich hopes to placate him with a gold commission and maybe some other things but not foreigh policy and Santorum probably not at all)

Actually, “voting” is probably too strong. But the serial surge of various NotRomneys without Romney gaining much in the polls along the way tends to point against what people are telling pollsters about second-choice votes.

That’s, er, counter-intuitive, unless you mean that Romney would perform better head to head in southern evangelical states against Santorum as opposed to Newt (again assuming one-on-one). Romney is doing better in some polls in NC, and Santorum did poorly in SC, but it’s a big jump to suggest a straight Romney/Santorum contest is better for Mitt than a straight Romney/Gingrich contest over the long haul, given that Santorum likely has a better shot in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.

Karl, you assume that most of Newt’s support is evangelical and would normally transfer to Santorum. He does have supporters, like me, who vastly prefer Romney to Santorum.

Or do you view big-spending Santorum as a Tea Party candidate? You do realize that much of Newt’s support comes from that direction? Yes, Newt makes with the social conservative words when asked, but he is mostly viewed as a fiscal conservative and that’s his prime differentiation.

Romney has several strong support groups: electability voters, Wall St/corporate/business voters, fiscal conservative/small government voters who seek mild change, and people looking for stability or “good government” (an oxymoron, but I digress).

Santorum’s supporters are evangelicals, social conservatives and blue-collar and middle class people worried about jobs. He is weakest on fiscal conservatism of all of them.

Gingrich’s supporters are small government fiscal conservatives activists who want a much smaller federal government and significant change. He has made a point of not repelling the social conservatives (other than by his messy personal life). He has attempted to attract the blue-collar vote through his Bain attacks.

If Gingrich drops out, his main support will go to Romney since Romney is more likely to restore federalism/reform the federal government than big-spending Santorum.

If Santorum drops out, his main support goes to Gingrich, since Romney is not credible on social issues, nor is he credible on blue-collar issues.

His whole argument about MA health care being a state program vs the Obamacare federal program RESTS on Federalism. The idea that a state can do something stupid different if it wants to is pretty much the definition of Federalism.

THIS WEBSITE IS SUPER BORING. I AM GOING TO START A PETITION TO BRING BACK AARON WORTHING. PATTERICO STILL DOESNT POST THE MAJORITY OF THE POSTS HE LETS OTHER PEOPLE DO HIS DIRTY WORK. IF YOU DID BY ACTUAL WORD COUNT INSTEAD OF POST KARL WOULD BE WRITING THE MOST OF THE CONTENT ON THIS WEBSITE BY A LONG SHOT. AND KARL IS SO BORING HE SAYS THE SAME STUFF OVER AND OVER.

“Under an earlier draft of the deal, some 1 million U.S. homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages could be eligible for as much as $20,000 in relief of principal owed, according to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan.

But the relief would only be available to those homeowners whose mortgages haven’t been sold to the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

And it’s been interesting seeing the same few people switch gears nearly effortlessly from complaining about firey Newt to complaining that Santorum isn’t conservative enough (compared to Mitt?!?).

Hmmm. Depends on what you mean by “conservative.” I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government (outside of Obamacare) in 18 debates. I have heard him talk at length about the Family, about abortion, about gay marriage and other social issues. As a fiscal conservative, he is weakest of the lot. As a culture warrior his credentials are the best.

He is, in many ways, a big government Republican. I agree his focus is not on the urgent conservative issue of the day. It is highly annoying that candidates who have long records of being great on the issue that this nation faces, and far more executive experience, were crushed. I think a lot of this was manufactured outrage, too.

But Romney supporters noting Santorum lacks a conservative enough record are silly. Santorum was involved with welfare reform, Romney with Romneycare. It’s not even a close call.

Congress did not lead in updating electronic data support in its push of Subprime loans. Consequently, the industry wildcat MERS to get loan deeds processed when loan originators sell the loan in a few weeks.

We got a foreclosure and a Quick Deed from Fannie weeks after their mandated 30 day closing.

The only news in all this is Citi and BoA headed for bankruptcy, and bigger still the plug in the foreclosure pipeline allowing people to live in their place for a couple years without a payment is popped.

The 3.5 Million homes empty or squatted in by owners with no money down now get put on the market, bit by bit, and the bottom in the market is finally plumbed, after elections naturally.

I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government

— Commit to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years.
— Immediately reduce federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels through across the board spending cuts.
— Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform.
— Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.
— Implement reforms and cost savings of up to $100 billion in March 2011 GAO report requested by Senator Coburn listing 34 areas of duplication and waste.
— Stop implementation of any remaining federal stimulus spending.
— Freeze pay for non-defense related federal employees for four years, cut workforce by 10% with no compensatory increase in contract workforce, and phase out defined benefit plans for newer workers.
— Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens.
— Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years.

All of the above from Santorum’s official platform. So which is it, Kevin M? Is he not saying it? Or are you engaging in selective hearing?

I’ve come around to abo.
I will take a steam shower directly after voting.
I love Col. West.

Comment by sickofrinos

Word.

And don’t get me wrong: Santorum is not consistently conservative the way Reagan/Goldwater fans usually are… in fact he is quite honest about this.

I have mixed feelings about the guy. He’s a good person… not just someone who cultivated that image because he was raised in a political dynasty, but a genuinely honest person. The contrast between Santorum and the hysterics he would face would present a culture war I think the good guys would win.

And he’s right on a variety of matters.

But shrinking the government outweighs all other issues for me. I think Newt would be better at it, but it’s not the kind of call that anyone can be sure about, is it?

Comment by Icy — 2/9/2012 @ 12:29 pm
Santorum’s problem is that this, to a greater or lesser degree, is a turnaround from what he did while he was in Congress. So is this what he really believes now, or is he just saying it to win votes?
I will gladly give him the benefit of the doubt, but there are some interesting things in that platform that suggest he hasn’t completed the transformation thoroughly.

reduce federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels
Is GWB’s last year in office such a great baseline? Why not roll it back to 2000 levels, or 2004, or at least 2007, as an acknowledgement that some of the overspending occurred before Obama.
Also note the exemption for defense spending, which is reinfoced byFreeze pay for non-defense related federal employees
Is Defense to be totally exempt, a sacred cow not to be touched, or even restrained to current levels? There’s nothing in the Defense budget Rick can find that needs cutting, not one employee of DoD whose services the Republic can live without?Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens.
Er, why not get rid of the regulations entirely? Why leave it in suspended animation for someone to revive later on?and block grant to the States
which would mean shifting the financial burden for the rest to the States. Instead of paying higher taxes to the USG, you would be paying higher taxes to the state and local governments.
I don’t think your bank accounts will think that’s an importance difference.

JBS:Santorum’s problem is that this, to a greater or lesser degree, is a turnaround from what he did while he was in Congress. So is this what he really believes now, or is he just saying it to win votes?
— One problem Santorum does NOT have is being a “flip-flopper”, or a panderer.

Is GWB’s last year in office such a great baseline? Why not roll it back to 2000 levels, or 2004, or at least 2007, as an acknowledgement that some of the overspending occurred before Obama.
— Why does Santorum need to ‘acknowledge’ it?
Especially when you just did?

Is Defense to be totally exempt, a sacred cow not to be touched, or even restrained to current levels?
— So sorry! Did not know that I was the only one with exclusive access to Santorum’s Super Secret Strategy. Here ya go:Freeze defense spending levels for 5 years and reject automatic cuts.

Er, why not get rid of the regulations entirely? Why leave it in suspended animation for someone to revive later on?
— Er, is Santorum running for the legislature?

Well, someone is sure being selective. Edit my comment and remove the qualification, then retort with something that is outside that qualification. Then accuse ME of selective hearing! Nicely done.
Comment by Kevin M — 2/9/2012 @ 7:20 pm

— Okay, let’s focus like a laser beam (or like a vulture capitalist on it’s business victim), buddy:
You wrote, “I have not hear Santorum utter one word about cutting the size and power of the federal government (outside of Obamacare) in 18 debates.”
I listed 9 Santorum platform positions, outside of Obamacare, that cut the size and power of the federal government.
Just because I did not quote your qualifier doesn’t mean I did not honor it.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.